Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2023 23:52:01 GMT -5
I agree. Most statements about reality are double edged, and therefore dangerous. Note my third paragraph. I find the nondual world rich in narcissists and escapists. I was in the latter camp. Life experience snapped me out of it. To answer your question. No. It had nothing to do with Christianity. I considered myself a Christian while at the Zendo and even after I left. It was misery in the form of depression that drove me to Zen. Therapy was helpful, but only provided temporary relief. Zazen was a permanent cure. My views on Christianity changed after reading The Dark Side of God and agreeing with its conclusion that Christianity is an invention of Paul. But even when I considered myself a Christian my views were pretty unorthodox. Actually in the Zendo, I never encountered nonduality. There was never that kind of talk. It was all about technique. My interest in RM and nonduality started with reading "My Untethered Soul" many years after leaving the Zendo. My wife got a copy of it from a friend. I still consider myself a follower of Jesus, but see Christianity as a perversion of his teaching. Speaking of mantras, I still recite the rosary. I kept my communion rosary. Funny thing is for some strange reason the Hail Mary's are in Spanish and The Our Father's are in English. My favorite mantra is "Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the earth, have mercy on me." You can take the man out Catholicism, but can't take Catholicism out of the man, I guess.
Yes, I used to talk about conceptual NDism, nobody wanted to. Concerning this, I agree. But I also consider it was planned, in a "two birds one stone" way. The major religions were originated from a higher order of reality, by "Messengers" (I've gone into this somewhat with andrew). So at least Buddhism, Judaism (Moses), Islam, Tibetan Buddhism (Padmasambhava), Christianity, Jesus/Paul. So Jesus in the red letters is the real deal, he bears almost no resemblance to the Jesus of Christianity. But, again, I think Jesus was in on it. So there is an inner teaching and an outer teaching. Jesus had and passed on the inner teaching, there are more than hints in the red. And Paul came along to fulfill his mission, for the outer teaching, the Church. Its purpose is basically to give a moral basis for culture, it was a failure by the Inquisition. I'm pretty sure, about 93%, that Paul knew he also had a role, he played a part. This outer teaching and inner teaching aspect it blatant in Judaism. In the OT there is the school of the prophets who passed on the inner teaching. This teaching also came to be called Kabbalah about the 12th century, but it probably existed at least all the way back to Abraham, who came from Ur. In the 5th grade we learned about the Sumerians. I saw that they were a high point of civilization, and afterwards civilization actually degraded. So, I learned later that Sumer = Ur, so Abraham was chosen to continue the tradition, a new place, a new time, a new people, a new start. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (revered by Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Abraham was also the father of Islam, which came from Abraham + his Egyptian servant Hagar, which resulted in Ishmael, begat, begat, begat, etc.). Just a tiny bit more. Jesus and John the Baptist were both most likely Essenes, who carried the inner tradition. IOW, we don't know behind the scenes. The inner teaching of all these religions are in agreement, as they came from the same source. I'd throw Lao Tzu and Taoism in the same group also. Where he writes about being and nonbeing, that used to throw me, nonbeing. Then a few months ago I found what I consider a reliable source. He says this simply means manifest and unmanifest, nonbeing simply means that which is not manifest. Makes sense. Yes. It's pretty obvious Jesus was waiting for the right time to "sacrifice" himself (Passover). All part of the Cosmic Drama. Jesus knew the timing. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Apr 30, 2023 6:00:30 GMT -5
There isn't one is the first instance . This is a myth . What? I did not understand you, explain me more. You speak about there is one consciousness either looking through many eyes or maybe it takes turn looking through yours and then mine. Where did you get this information from that there is such a 'one' consciousness that can do anything in these instances / regards? The quandary starts off with the a foundation where there is such a 'one' . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2023 6:05:06 GMT -5
What? I did not understand you, explain me more. You speak about there is one consciousness either looking through many eyes or maybe it takes turn looking through yours and then mine. Where did you get this information from that there is such a 'one' consciousness that can do anything in these instances / regards? The quandary starts off with the a foundation where there is such a 'one' . Okay, I understand your question. You must understand the concept of 'everything moves as one' in order to understand that there is only one consciousness orchestrating everything, and nothing moves independently. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Apr 30, 2023 6:14:26 GMT -5
You speak about there is one consciousness either looking through many eyes or maybe it takes turn looking through yours and then mine. Where did you get this information from that there is such a 'one' consciousness that can do anything in these instances / regards? The quandary starts off with the a foundation where there is such a 'one' . Okay, I understand your question. You must understand the concept of 'everything moves as one' in order to understand that there is only one consciousness orchestrating everything, and nothing moves independently. I understand that there is only what you are but that doesn't equate to there being 'one' of something that you call consciousness to then create a concept or a quandary about other's based upon that . Many speak about One Consciousness, butt don't know what Consciousness is .. There is no separation in movement or creation or whatever word suits, I can agree with you on that . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2023 6:34:40 GMT -5
Okay, I understand your question. You must understand the concept of 'everything moves as one' in order to understand that there is only one consciousness orchestrating everything, and nothing moves independently. I understand that there is only what you are but that doesn't equate to there being 'one' of something that you call consciousness to then create a concept or a quandary about other's based upon that . Many speak about One Consciousness, butt don't know what Consciousness is .. There is no separation in movement or creation or whatever word suits, I can agree with you on that . That's great, atlast we found something to agree with. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 30, 2023 8:44:45 GMT -5
In my teens and '20's I was desperate to understand myself and the world, I was not happy with the Christianity I had grown up in. At 18 I started exploring Eastern philosophy and religions. I discovered Alan Watts pretty early, probably from The Wisdom of Insecurity, which he got mostly from J Krishnamurti, admittedly. (As I've said here many times, J Krishnamurti was IT for me from 1971-[March] 1976, that it, nobody I encountered surpassed him in clarity. But that also means I didn't stop with him). I explored Joel Goldsmith pretty extensively, I consider his best book A Parenthesis In Eternity (that's what you're living right now, a parenthesis in eternity). He can be summed up in one sentence (his): God is the substance of all form. So I encountered nonduality, although not specifically named that. I remember specifically doing a *thought experiment*, a test, of nonseparation. I put myself in a sealed refrigerator (I thought that up myself). So it didn't take very long to see that, no, I have no separate existence, I saw that deeply (and I extended that out to include the furthest reaches of any aspect of my being. I could gladly go into that). We could stop there. But I was functionally, a mess, seeing I had no separate existence didn't help me get out of bed in the morning. Ya know, I am going to stop there. Let's just say that my *refrigerator [thought] experiment* didn't stop my spiritual search. But my key words were functionality, pragmatism, not idealism. But universe is not made of consciousness material, There is one consciousness to which everything appears. Consciousness is watching the movie, the secret we yet to have learn is, the same consciousness is animating that movie as well. But that is what ZD has been telling you since you've been here. That's his "One trick pony". This is why ZD *beats you up* all the time, and more-so Reefs, that you have not had this realization. I give up. (sdp throws arms up in exasperation). |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 30, 2023 9:01:20 GMT -5
You speak about there is one consciousness either looking through many eyes or maybe it takes turn looking through yours and then mine. Where did you get this information from that there is such a 'one' consciousness that can do anything in these instances / regards? The quandary starts off with the a foundation where there is such a 'one' . Okay, I understand your question. You must understand the concept of 'everything moves as one' in order to understand that there is only one consciousness orchestrating everything, and nothing moves independently. To me, 'everything moves as one' means 'everything moves in absolute perfect synchronicity'...i.e as 'one movement'. So that's not quite the same as saying there is 'one' consciousness....I would also say that the idea of 'one' here is a bit misconceived. It's one of those times that language hits a wall. Can 'infinite' be adequately described as 'one'? ('Infinite' is a flawed word too though). |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 30, 2023 9:05:56 GMT -5
In my teens and '20's I was desperate to understand myself and the world, I was not happy with the Christianity I had grown up in. At 18 I started exploring Eastern philosophy and religions. I discovered Alan Watts pretty early, probably from The Wisdom of Insecurity, which he got mostly from J Krishnamurti, admittedly. (As I've said here many times, J Krishnamurti was IT for me from 1971-[March] 1976, that it, nobody I encountered surpassed him in clarity. But that also means I didn't stop with him). I explored Joel Goldsmith pretty extensively, I consider his best book A Parenthesis In Eternity (that's what you're living right now, a parenthesis in eternity). He can be summed up in one sentence (his): God is the substance of all form. So I encountered nonduality, although not specifically named that. I remember specifically doing a *thought experiment*, a test, of nonseparation. I put myself in a sealed refrigerator (I thought that up myself). So it didn't take very long to see that, no, I have no separate existence, I saw that deeply (and I extended that out to include the furthest reaches of any aspect of my being. I could gladly go into that). We could stop there. But I was functionally, a mess, seeing I had no separate existence didn't help me get out of bed in the morning. Ya know, I am going to stop there. Let's just say that my *refrigerator [thought] experiment* didn't stop my spiritual search. But my key words were functionality, pragmatism, not idealism. But universe is not made of consciousness material, There is one consciousness to which everything appears. Consciousness is watching the movie, the secret we yet to have learn is, the same consciousness is animating that movie as well. Maybe you could clarify 'animating'...? Normally you say 'creating'....you mean something new now? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2023 9:06:39 GMT -5
Okay, I understand your question. You must understand the concept of 'everything moves as one' in order to understand that there is only one consciousness orchestrating everything, and nothing moves independently. To me, 'everything moves as one' means 'everything moves in absolute perfect synchronicity'...i.e as 'one movement'. So that's not quite the same as saying there is 'one' consciousness....I would also say that the idea of 'one' here is a bit misconceived. It's one of those times that language hits a wall. Can 'infinite' be adequately described as 'one'? ('Infinite' is a flawed word too though). Everything can't move as one unless everything is One Single consciousness. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2023 9:06:59 GMT -5
But universe is not made of consciousness material, There is one consciousness to which everything appears. Consciousness is watching the movie, the secret we yet to have learn is, the same consciousness is animating that movie as well. Maybe you could clarify 'animating'...? Normally you say 'creating'....you mean something new now? No, same. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 30, 2023 10:02:22 GMT -5
To me, 'everything moves as one' means 'everything moves in absolute perfect synchronicity'...i.e as 'one movement'. So that's not quite the same as saying there is 'one' consciousness....I would also say that the idea of 'one' here is a bit misconceived. It's one of those times that language hits a wall. Can 'infinite' be adequately described as 'one'? ('Infinite' is a flawed word too though). Everything can't move as one unless everything is One Single consciousness. well, I'd say everything can't move as one if there is any separation. I'm slightly unwilling to put 'movement' into the same category as 'consciousness', but I can't disagree with your logic. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 30, 2023 10:02:49 GMT -5
Maybe you could clarify 'animating'...? Normally you say 'creating'....you mean something new now? No, same. okay |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2023 10:12:57 GMT -5
Everything can't move as one unless everything is One Single consciousness. well, I'd say everything can't move as one if there is any separation. I'm slightly unwilling to put 'movement' into the same category as 'consciousness', but I can't disagree with your logic. ok |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Apr 30, 2023 11:18:48 GMT -5
Yes, I'm with you. The freedom barometer is also a happiness measure. No matter what the elegance of your nondual paradigm, if there isn't happiness then it ain't working. When peace permeates even the hard moments, then there's freedom. If you had such tranquilly, it would re-orchestrate the outside world as well. So the difficult moments you mention would not occur (mostly) because you are not only watching life, but also creating it. You can't re-orchestrate Reality and you can't avoid hard things like the death of a beloved. But you can be at peace with it. Some call it making room.. The best metaphor I've heard is a handful of salt in a glass versus a lake. In the latter, you can barely taste the saltiness. Like the woman who asked the Buddha to relieve her from the grief caused by the death of her son. He told her to go to every house in the village and collect a cup of rice from anyone who has not known grief. She came back empty handed. I always thought freedom was about avoiding pain. It's not. It's much more about allowing, letting go. It doesn't mean inaction, btw. The story of Arjuna is insightful in this regard. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Apr 30, 2023 13:33:30 GMT -5
“The Sage has no thinking mind and therefore there are no ‘others’ for him.”
— Ramana Maharshi
|
|
